Gruenwald v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gruenwald v. State

926 So. 2d 439, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5290, 2006 WL 908450

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Gruenwald v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 2002 →

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 11, 2006·No. No. 1D05-3648·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Because our independent review of the record did not reveal reversible error, we affirm. However, we remand for removal of the theft enhancements from Appellant’s judgment. Gruenwald v. State, 899 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Because correction of this scrivener’s error is simply a ministerial act, Appellant’s presence is not required. The trial court’s order is affirmed in all other respects.

AFFIRMED but REMANDED for correction of scrivener’s error.

ERVIN, PADOVANO and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Appellant filed an appeal under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Because our independent review of the record did not reveal reversible error, we affirm. However, we remand for removal of the theft enhancements from Appellant’s judgment. Gruenwald v. State, 899 So.2d 1138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Because correction of this scrivener’s error is simply a ministerial act, Appellant’s presence is not required. The trial court’s order is affirmed in all other respects.

AFFIRMED but REMANDED for correction of scrivener’s error.

ERVIN, PADOVANO and HAWKES, JJ., concur.

Gruenwald v. State, 926 So. 2d 439, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 5290, 2006 WL 908450 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

926 So. 2d 439 (Gruenwald v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related